When we are met with sudden bursts of emotions, what comes first: the physical or mental reaction?
Since the inception of psychology, emotions have turned into an interesting chicken or the egg phenomena. When good things happen, we smile, but does smiling make us happier?
In the world of psychology and motor neurons, these questions remain unanswered, but countless theories have arisen to explain this almost unexplainable human characteristic. These theories have tried to distinguish the specific firing point within our bodies regarding these emotions, but all of them lack an explanation broad enough that can effectively describe such a diverse human race.
Emotions are a complex mixture of our physical, cognitive, and expressive behavior, but to what extent do each of these matter? Of course, when good, positive things happen to us, we feel a gut-reaction, whether that be smiling or laughing. All of these reactions happen both beneath our skin and within our neurons while also being presented outward and physically.
Fundamental conversations, on freedom and self-determination, greatly influenced Anthony Burgess’ choice of immoral characterization and dramatic plot development in his 1962 dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange, dealing with what it means to be able to make choices in a restrictive society and dabbling in themes of freedom and bondage.
Modern-day democracies across the globe continue to thrive as world powers as a result of the choices made by its citizens. However, when governments suppress the voice of the people, as seen in A Clockwork Orange’s totalitarian government, growth is stunted and the government remains static. Similarly, philosophers have debated whether individuals have free will and the extent to which this self-sufficiency extends. Alvin Plantinga, an analytic professor at the University of Notre Dame describes the ability to choose as, “Now, God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if he does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.” (Plantinga). Plantinga’s attention towards the ability to make choices rather than rely on foreordained outcomes reveals the very hypocrisy Burgess aims to reveal through his novel, a hypocrisy centered on the notion that good can’t live without the choice to do otherwise. Alex, who is the antihero of the novel, questions the government which strives to dictate him, wondering, “ What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?” (Burgess). Alex’s internal line of questioning and later entrapment by the restrictive government reveals the evident truth of decision making. Without choice, then there is no moral guideline to follow and, essentially, no discernment from right and wrong. To state that the ability to make a choice through self-autonomy is an act of hypocrisy in and of itself as the individual making such a claim would be referring to their own volition. For example, Jans Jonas, a German philosopher reveals an anecdote about a group of physiologists such as Ernst Brucke and Emil du Bois-Reymond who promised early in their careers, “Brucke and I pledged a solemn oath to put into effect this truth: ‘that no other forces are at work in the organism except chemical-physical ones’” (Jones). Contrary to their statement, their eventual rise to fame is an indicator of the impact personal actions have on an individual. As Seifert, an Austrian philosopher explains,
What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and a professor at Stanford University posed the same exact question in 1971, thereby leading to what is known as The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). The experiment was originally created to uncover the truth about human nature, a more in-depth look on what our true ambitions were, what really drove us. Zimbardo began by choosing 24 volunteers, making 12 of them “guards” and the other 12 “prisoners”. They were taken to a prison simulation, a fabricated illusion to make the volunteers feel as if they were actually in prison. He began by giving the guards ultimate power and left the prisoners vulnerable. This evidently led to a distinction of power between the two groups. 45 years later, people still ponder the question that drove the experiment to its end. Was this study ethically right? The Stanford Prison Experiment was not ethically right, it stripped volunteers of emotion temporarily, forcing them to turn against each other and was physically harmful to the majority of the participants.
The overwhelming amount of commercials, advertisements, and promotional campaigns that Americans are bombarded with is astronomical, to the point it is affecting their dietary habits. As the turn from a nomadic lifestyle switched to one with steady food supplies and surplus, history of mankind derailed and took an entirely different course, one that would later involve corporations utilizing marketing communications to influence their consumers.
Did our first US President George Washington’s fears about American politics come true? We wonder…Let’s learn more about the history of America’s political and party realignment between Democrats and Republicans.